Dear Apolitical Christians: This CA Bill Could Ban The Bible And The Christian Worldview

Leave a comment

H/T Clash Daily.

America’s Christian Church’s need to wake up a fight this anti Christian Bias coming from California.

‘There’s no war on Christianity,’ they said. Sure there isn’t.

Check out what über-progressive and tolerant California is doing…

In an effort to secure the rights of the LGGBDTT2IQQAAPP+ community, California Bill AB 2943 could be used to ban religious books like the Bible.

Remove the rights of one group to secure the rights of another.

How authoritarian.

Think we’re taking this too far?

The bill — using very open language — would make it an ‘unlawful business practice’ to engage in a ‘transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer’ that offer to engage in, do engage in, or even advertise ‘sexual orientation change efforts with an individual’.

Catholic World Report explains ‘orientation change’:

“Orientation change” can be as innocuous as stating at a paid conference that homosexual and transgender desire can be overcome (not necessarily eliminated) by the Spirit of Jesus. Or even complying with an attendee’s request for prayer that the Spirit of God empower the attendee not to succumb to the power of same-sex attractions.

Source: Catholic World Report

This could easily be directed at Christian counseling services, conferences, and, yes, even the Bible.

David French explains it all in a National Review article:

The bill then defines “sexual orientations change efforts” as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” (Emphasis added.)

This is extraordinarily radical. Christian orthodoxy is simple — regardless of a person’s desires (their “orientation”), the standard of right conduct is crystal clear. Sex is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. When it comes to “gender expression,” there is no difference between “sex” and “gender,” and the Christian response to gender dysphoria is compassion and treatment, not indulgence and surgical mutilation.

It’s a rather vague term.

So, what exactly does it mean by ‘goods and services’?

It could be rather innocuous, actually.

The bill very broadly categorizes ‘goods and services’.

1770. (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:

Second, a book (along with other written materials, like pamphlets or workbooks) fits within the very, very broad definition of a goods: tangible chattels bought or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, including certificates or coupons exchangeable for these goods, and including goods that, at the time of the sale or subsequently, are to be so affixed to real property as to become a part of real property, whether or not they are severable from the real property.

Basically, if you can buy it and move it (in other words, it’s not real estate), then it’s a good. Moreover, under the statute, “services” can include “services furnished in connection with the sale or repair of goods.” Booksellers provide “services.”

… Scroll down through the list of dozens of prohibited acts, and you’ll come to paragraph 28, which bans: “Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.” … If parents faced a child who was identifying as a person of the opposite sex, then services and goods making the argument that, for example, they should persist in calling their daughter “she” and withhold life-altering hormone treatment in part because most children exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria desist would violate this statute.

This is the same type of stuff that is going on in Ontario, Canada where parents might face government intervention if their disagreement on the gender identity of their minor child rises to the level of what bureaucrats deem as ‘abuse’.

It doesn’t seem to matter what the individual wants, because the government knows best.

If you have unwanted same-sex attraction, well, just get used to it and learn to love it, says California.

How does this work with the ‘identity politics’?

If your ‘orientation’ is heterosexual but have same-sex attraction, does that mean you can still get counseling?

What about Harvey Weinstein?

Can he still get counseling to stop being a sexual predator?

What if he doesn’t want to stop?

What if it’s his ‘orientation’?

Can he sue counseling services for trying to make him stop preying on vulnerable women?

How about pedophiles?

Some are already calling themselves ‘Minor-Attracted Persons’ and are seeking to legitimize themselves and redeem their tarnished reputation.

Salon’s piece here is evidence.

Can we counsel them?

Or do we just tell them to live with those unwanted sexual feelings?

Interesting questions, don’t you think?

Ones that California legislators should have asked before passing this bill.

But, remember kiddies, it’s Christianity that’s the problem.


FDR’s D-Day Prayer June 6,1944


No president could utter such a prayer in public today.

I can hear all of the leftist loons today screeching and Hell raising over such prayer.

The would say how dare the president invoke God‘s name –in prayer then end the prayer with “Thy Will be Done!”

Thank God prayers helped the final victory to be  won.


FDR’s D-Day Prayer June 6,1944

1 Comment

No president could utter such a prayer in public today.

I can hear all of the leftist loons today screeching and Hell raising over such prayer.

The would say how dare the president invoke God‘s name –in prayer then end the prayer with “Thy Will be Done!”

Thank God prayers helped the final victory to be  won.

You Better Listen to What Marco Rubio Is Saying About the Assault on Christianity


This is from Rush

While the left is attacking Christianity, they will not be able to destroy Christianity.

Matthew 16:18King James Version (KJV)

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


RUSH: This is the Christian Broadcasting Network, CBN, chief political correspondent David Brody interviewing Marco Rubio late yesterday.  Question:  “Does your deep faith drive public policy decisions on social issues like traditional marriage.”

RUBIO:  We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech, because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.  So what’s the next step after that?  After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech and that’s a real and present danger.

RUSH:  Do you think Rubio’s got a point there?  You better. I tell you, you better not sweep this away, folks. You better not think this is a little bit over the top.  He is right on the money.  In fact, I would even go further.  I think mainstream Christianity is the target and has been for I can’t tell you how long.  Before I was born.  Christianity has been the biggest enemy of the American left — well, any left.  Organized religion in general, but Christianity is the number one enemy of these people.

You notice they’ve made friends with militant Islam.  The left will not stand for any criticism of militant Islam, right?  You start drawing cartoons of the prophet, they’re the first to jump on your case, right?  Democrats and the left, they are out condemning any criticism of Islam.  They’ve sidled up.  Why?  Well, Islam has an enemy.  In their mind, their enemy’s Christianity.  So there’s a commonality there.  And I don’t care — folks, maybe this is another one of those things you’re just not supposed to say, but I’m sorry, it’s undeniable.

Okay.  Okay.  Tell me I’m wrong when I say that the left has formed an accord with Islam, tell me I’m wrong.  Militant Islam says you can’t draw pictures of the prophet.  The Democrat Party:  You can’t draw pictures of prophet, you can’t criticize Islam.  And they go out of their way not to.  We can’t call ’em terrorists.  You know the drill.  Christianity, it’s open season.  You can say anything, you can do anything, you can mock anything.  And Christians are just supposed to take it, and the reason we’re supposed to take it is ’cause we’re the majority.  The majority has to understand minorities feel offended, always hit on and ripped apart, so forth. You just gotta take it, part of being the majority.

And that is a relevant fact.  I mean, majorities are hated by the people in the minority.  The problem for us is that the minorities that we’re talking about here, most of them are really tiny, and yet they’re winning.  They’re bullying their way around, it’s incredible.  And Marco Rubio here is right on the money.  Look at Ireland and gay marriage.  What was the final vote there?  Was it 60%?  (interruption)  Over 60% approving.

Now, I have to tell you something.  As best I’ve been able to ascertain, Ireland just didn’t do this on its own.  There was a lot of American money moving the issue. There were a lot of American activists over there pushing the issue.  Nevertheless, they won, they made it happen.  And the pope, I don’t think — somebody correct me if I’m wrong — I don’t think the pope said anything about it.

Let me tell you where is next, then.  Italy is going to be next, by design and on purpose.  Gay marriage forces will target Italy, and by targeting Italy, they will target Rome.  And they’ll also go to Milan; fashion central is already the way paved there.  Maybe a little bit Florence.  Might even mess with Venice, but certainly Rome and the Vatican.  Marco Rubio: Christianity facing a real and present danger in the US due to a growing acceptance for gay marriage.

It’s not just gay marriage by the way.  It goes back to this Gallup poll celebrating the fall of morality, celebrating the fall of conventional morality.  It’s not just gay marriage.  It’s all kinds of things that constitute the fall of age-old morality, which the left has targeted as long as I’ve been around.  So Rubio said, “We’re at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.”

You will support it.  And not only will you support it, you will embrace it and you will love it.  It’s their own version of Sharia, if you want to know what Sharia is like.  Just like with Obamacare.  You will participate in Obamacare, and you will like it, and you will promote it, and you will not criticize it.  You will support gay marriage.  You will promote it.  You will love it, and you will accept it.  Anything less and you will be attacked.

Rubio said the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech.  And that’s a real and present danger.  Now, he said earlier this year also in an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network that it’s ridiculous and absurd to believe that there’s a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  “Fifty-eight percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, according to a Quinnipiac University poll earlier this year.  Fifty-nine percent of Republicans are opposed to it.”  Companion story — (interruption) what is this?  Oh, the pope did weigh in.  Oh, I’m sorry, it’s not the pope.  Well, okay, the pope hasn’t weighed in.

I said something earlier today — I got a note from somebody about this, about the next target area for the militant gay marriage crowd being Italy.  And pope’s gonna have to speak up.  And I stuttered and I stumbled, I thought, “Do I really want to tell ’em what I really think?”  Don’t be surprised if this pope eventually comes out and supports it as part of the global warming agenda.  It’s a different pope here.  He surprises you issue to issue.

Anyway, from the UK Guardian, the headline:  “Vatican Says Ireland Gay Marriage Vote is ‘Defeat for Humanity’ — Vatican diplomat seen as second only to the pope insists Saturday’s referendum result shows ‘the church must strengthen its commitment to evangelisation.’ A senior Vatican official has attacked the legalisation of gay marriage in Ireland. The referendum that overwhelmingly backed marriage equality last weekend was a ‘defeat for humanity,’ he claimed.”

This marriage equality, what is wrong with that?  Do you people on the left really think that whatever number of thousands of years ago some rich, fat, white guy sat around and defined marriage specifically to exclude homosexuals just because he hated ’em and wanted to discriminate against them?  And there has been thus, ever since, a quest for marriage inequality?  Is that what you really think?  Marriage equality?  Marriage has a definition, or it did.  Words mean things.  Marriage is a union of a man and a woman, pure and simple.  That’s what it is.

Now, if you’re gonna allow people of the same sex to get married, you’d better come up with a different term because that’s not what marriage is if words means things.  And words do mean things.  And if you’re gonna change the definition of marriage, then you better be open-minded and permit any change under the umbrella to happen.  If marriage is no longer the marriage of a man and a woman, the union of a man and a woman, then what is it?  “Well, Mr. Limbaugh, marriage is now a union of a man or a woman, or it can be a union of a woman and a woman or a union of a man and a man.”  Oh, okay.

How about this?  How about marriage can be the union of two men and one woman.

“Well, no.”

Well, why not?  You’ve blown the definition up already.  Why can’t it be whatever anybody wants to do, as long as they love somebody.  Words mean things.  Institutions are institutions for a reason.  They’re not designed by a bunch of people who hope to discriminate against people.  The roots of marriage are rooted in decency and goodness and love and child rearing and all of these things that are supposedly to aid society in remaining cohesive and to propagate the race for a whole host of reasons that are important, including bloodlines and everything else.

But once you blow that up, it isn’t marriage.  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  Look it up anywhere.  And this whole notion of marriage equality, as though the designers of marriage did so purposely to discriminate?  There wasn’t any discrimination involved here. There wasn’t any hate. It wasn’t as though people devised an institution that specifically and for that reason denied access by others.  It’s not what the purpose of it was.

You know, you people on the left, not everything that happens has had you in the crosshairs.  Frankly, you haven’t been on that many people’s minds through the years.  We haven’t created all these traditions and institutions to exclude you.  It’s always been for other reasons that are far loftier.  They come along and claim that it’s a discriminatory institution rooted in hatred and bigotry and inequality and so forth.

And that’s how you get the young people to support it.  I mean, young people of course embrace the notion of equality and fairness and sameness, and if you go tell these people that just don’t have enough years lived in order to have sufficient experience, if you go portray marriage as something that discriminates, well, they don’t want to be a part of anything that discriminates, ’cause that’s not fair, that’s not nice, and that’s how they’ve done it.

But in the process they’ve blown up the definition of the word, and now it can mean anything anybody wants it to mean if they’re willing to make a cause out of it.  And it’s beginning to happen, predictably so.  I haven’t seen any official — maybe it’s happened and I just missed it — but has there been an official redefinition of the term that now specifies that marriage is either the union of a man and a woman or the union of a man and a man or the union of a woman and a woman?  Has that been codified somewhere?

No, what’s happened is, marriage is not just a union of a man and a woman, and the reason it isn’t is because it’s unfair and it’s discriminatory and it’s unequal.  And all of that is irrelevant to marriage and why it exists and how it came to be and what its purpose is.  But you wouldn’t know that if you’re a young Millennial and you’ve grown up surrounded by never ending assaults on how that’s unfair and that’s discriminatory and that’s inequality and you join the quest to make everything the same, everybody the same, everything equal, and, you know, bye-bye individuality and everything that comes with it.

So, anyway, the Vatican says Ireland gay marriage vote defeat for humanity, but the pope didn’t say it.  It was the biggest diplomat, Vatican diplomat, senior Vatican official.  Cardinal Pietro Parolin: “I was deeply saddened by the result. The church must take account of this reality, but in the sense that it must strengthen its commitment to evangelisation. I think that you cannot just talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but of a defeat for humanity.”

And up next, after the break, leftists push Italy to follow Ireland on same-sex marriage.  And it’s a direct assault on the Catholic Church, mark my words.  It’s next.


RUSH: Here is the Oxford, the old Oxford English Dictionary, I should say new definition of marriage.  Listen to this.  (laughing) This is pathetic.  Classic, but pathetic.  Definition of marriage in the New Oxford English Dictionary.  Quote, “The condition of being a husband or wife.”  Marriage is now a condition. It’s a disease. It’s an assignment.  It’s “the condition of being husband or wife.  The relation between persons married to each other.  Matrimony.  The term is now sometime used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”

That’s what counts.  That’s the money quote in this stupid definition.  “The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”  I wonder if you go back and get a dictionary ten years ago, you look at the definition of marriage, I wonder what you’d find, and it wouldn’t have any of this gibberish in it.  “The condition of being a husband or wife.  The relation between persons married to each other.”  That’s what marriage is, the relation between people married to each other?  I didn’t think you could put the word in the definition.

We’re trying to define marriage, so how do you define marriage by using the word “married”?  That doesn’t help anybody to understand it.  And then matrimony.  Matrimony is another acceptable definition of marriage.  That would not help the people in Rio Linda to know what it is.  Nope.  You have to get down to, “The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”  How is that even marriage?  Long-term relationships between persons of the same sex?  Why can’t you just take the old definition of marriage that used to be what it was, defining a relationship, matrimony, a man and a woman and just say it’s a same thing for two men or two women?  Why obfuscate, why all this dancing around here?

Rutgers University Professor Brittney Cooper: Religious Right’s “God is an A*****e” of ‘White Supremacy’


This is from Freedom OutPost.

This is the trash parents tuition money pays for.

Professor Britney Cooper’s mind is so open her brains fell out.


Another open-minded and inclusive college professor is going around making blanket statements about huge groups of people and the religion they practice. This time it’s a Rutgers University professor by the name of Brittney Cooper, who has everything figured out. She wrote about the recently passed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in an article for where she said this:

T]his kind of legislation is rooted in a politics that gives white people the authority to police and terrorize people of color, queer people and poor women. That means these people don’t represent any kind of Christianity that looks anything like the kind that I practice…

I often ask myself whether I really do worship the same God of white religious conservatives…[Jesus] never found time to even mention gay people, let alone condemn them. His message of radical inclusivity was so threatening that the state lynched him for fear that he was fomenting a cultural and political rebellion…

…This white, blond-haired, blue-eyed, gun-toting, Bible-quoting Jesus of the religious right is a god of their own making. I call this god, the god of white supremacy and patriarchy…

This God isn’t the God that I serve…He might be “biblical” but he’s also an asshole.

The Jesus I know…was a radical, freedom-loving, justice-seeking, potentially queer (because he was either asexual or a priest married to a prostitute), feminist healer…seduced neither by power nor evil…

…We need to reclaim the narrative of Jesus’ life and death from the evangelical right. They have not been good stewards over the narrative. They have pimped Jesus’ death to support the global spread of American empire vis-à-vis war, “missions,” and “free trade,” the abuse of native peoples, the continued subjugation of Black people, and the regulation of the sexual lives of women and gay people. Let us mark this Holy Week by declaring the death to the unholy trinity of white supremacist, capitalist, heteropatriarchy. And once these systems die, may they die once and for all, never to be resurrected.

There is so much wrong here it would take many volumes of books to unravel it all. Suffice it to say that this liberal perspective of who the Christian God is has never surfaced in the history of our faith. Over 2000 years and the god that this despicable woman describes has never been part of orthodox Christian teaching… and it’s not so now. Even in the vast majority of black American churches, the god that this horrible professor describes never makes an appearance. So the entirety of her speculation about who God is is without merit and specious.

Moreover, I cannot even begin to write the words to express how angry her characterization of God makes me.

However, it is something that we must learn. Liberals are attempting to coopt Christianity, to pervert the truth of the Word of God, which Jesus told his disciples was OFFENSIVE, in an effort to silence us. We cannot allow this to happen, because they would pervert, twist and even destroy the very Word of Truth that our Father has given to us.

Remember folks, Jesus told us that the world would hate us. He said that they had crucified Him, what did we think they would do to us?! Yes, some of our beliefs are controversial, but that does not make them wrong.

I’m sure some wise, religiously trained seminarian could write up a compelling and thoughtful counterpoint to this obviously twisted piece of garbage that Salon chose to call an article. For me, I can only say that I serve a great God. A God who is merciful and just. A God who loves us, and a God who expects us to obey his commands. I also serve a God Who has told me to choose between the wisdom of this world and the wisdom He has shared in His Word. I will always choose His Word.


1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

There is no comparison of Christianity to Islam.

If you leave the Christian faith we will pray for you and wish you well and you will be welcomed back with open arms.

If you leave Islam these goat humpers will hunt you down and kill you.

If you insult Jesus Christ, Christians will pray for your soul and leave you alone.

If you insult the Pedophile Mohammed these goat humpers will murder you.


“Offend a Christian and he is obliged to pray for your salvation. Offend a Muslim and he is obliged to murder you.” Soobserved conservative journalist Robert Stacy McCain in the wake of last week’s horrific Charlie Hebdo massacre in France.

And then we have Islam’s useful idiots – the politically correct set: secular-”progressive”media-types and other left-wing ivory tower elitists bent on bowing in subservientdhimmitude to the “religion of peace.” You know, people like Barack Hussein Obama who, in 2012, demanded from his lofty perch at the U.N.: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

I assume that by “the prophet of Islam,” the current leader of the free world was referencing Muhammad, a child-molesting, Christian-and-Jew-beheading slave trader who, for the purposes of selfish ambition and political power alone, plagiarized and perverted the Judeo-Christian Bible to cobble together the Quran – an incoherent owner’s manual to nearly a quarter of the world’s population. Islam is Christianity’s photo-negative, and a cheap knockoff at that. (Mr. President, you went to law school. You should know that truth is an affirmative defense to slander.)

Liberals: You can’t live with ‘em, you can’t slaughter ‘em en masse. Unless, of course, you’re a Muslim terrorist. Then, and as per Hillary Clinton, we must “respect” and “empathize with [your] perspective and point of view.”

Like the battered wife who keeps coming back for more (but didn’t she really bring it on herself?) secular-”progressives” will trip over themselves to rationalize the barbaric acts of those who take seriously the express dictates of this savage cult.

Better still, and as an alternative to excusing the global explosion in Islamic violence, these same “progressives” might choose to exploit the bloodshed for their own socio-political gain. If the Muslim world gives them lemons, they’ll compare apples to oranges. They’ll leverage the Islamic violence to actually slander the one religion they do hate: Christianity.

Even before the bodies of the French fallen had grown cold, former Rolling Stone executive editor and home-lobotomized liberal Eric Bates did just that. In perhaps the dumbest comment ever uttered on liberal television (and there is no short supply to choose from), Bates, who was a guest on the always-dependable MSNBC newsy network, compared the late Rev. Jerry Falwell to the Charlie Hebdo terrorists, suggesting that “religious fundamentalists of all stripes and of nationalities have this penchant to say, we want to be able tell you what you can and can’t portray.”

[See video:]

In an email addressing Bates’ remarks, Deryl Edwards, president of Liberty Counsel Actionand close friend and confidant to Jerry Falwell for over two decades, said the following:

To compare Dr. Falwell’s lawsuit against Hustler publisher Larry Flynt to the murderous thugs who gunned down the editors of Charlie Hebdo is mind-boggling. When I heard this comparison I was instantly reminded of the first time I ever spoke with Dr. Falwell. I was a student at Liberty Baptist College (now Liberty University) at the time. As my Christian service that semester I was working the tape ministry, which, in those days, meant duplicating sermon messages onto cassettes that were sent out to radio stations.

I was there by myself in one of the adjacent buildings to Thomas Road Baptist Church when the door suddenly opened and I heard a booming voice shout out ‘Hello!’ Turning around to see Dr. Falwell, I was more than a little scared and intimidated. But he nicely asked me if my supervisor was around. I said “no” and Dr. Falwell proceeded to ask me to relay a message. Dr. Falwell told me that in a recent sermon he had been critical of pornographers and, specifically, Larry Flynt. He added that Larry had just been shot and was paralyzed, so it wouldn’t be right for that tape to go out right now.

Even as a college sophomore I right then knew the measure of the man that his enemies would never acknowledge. Dr. Falwell could have easily used this tragedy to attack Flynt and call it God’s judgment or something, but because of his compassion, he refused to verbally attack a man who had been injured. Compare this to the horrific images this week of an Islamic radical calmly and methodically executing the wounded French officer lying on the sidewalk.

“I don’t recall Dr. Falwell leading or sending a team to assassinate Larry Flynt and the editorial staff of Hustler,” Edwards added.

He took his personal defamation case against Hustler to court, operating under the Rule of Law, and accepted the results, bitter as they may be. To take that further, Dr. Falwell then invested his time and much prayer, until he died, to winning Larry Flynt, whom he loved, to the Lord.

And there, Mr. Bates, is your contrast/comparison between Christianity and Islam. Dr. Jerry Falwell was a man with more love in his heart and righteousness in his soul than, absent your own coming to King Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you’ll possess in a lifetime.

This is … Keep Reading the Rest at: Are Christians and Muslim the Same?

The Future History of the U.S. Already has been Written – It’s Ugly Reading

Leave a comment

This is from Patriot UpDate.


If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

Ronald Reagan


Spanish/American philosopher George Santayana (1863-1952) left two quotes that seem to sum up quite well the current state of affairs in the United States of America. They are: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, and, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

The problem with most so-called “progressives” (I still call them liberals) is that they don’t seem to believe those two observations by Santayana. They seem to live in some kind of dream world where mankind is “progressive” and becoming something he is not–peaceful, wise, loving, generous. Yes, you can find some people like that, especially among Christians, but that is not the vast majority in the world. The majority of people in this country no longer are Christian, they are some kind of hybrid humanists/atheists/socialists who don’t have much grounding in history or common sense, not to mention the Word of God. That was taken out of schools. They also don’t act much like the “progressive” myth of people released from the restraints of religion and God.

I had occasion to peruse a book of quotations recently and was impressed to find many that fit the circumstances in which the United States finds itself so well that it’s obvious no one on the left is paying attention. For example Edward Gibbon, author of “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” attributed that fall to:

1. The rapid increase of divorce; the undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis of human society.

2. Higher and higher taxes and the spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace.

3. The mad craze for pleasure; sports becoming every year more exciting and more brutal.

4. The building of gigantic armaments when the real enemy was within, the decadence of the people.

5. The decay of religion, faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life and becoming impotent to warn and guide the people.

Obviously every one of those five fit the U.S. exactly today. The last note, the decline of religion, in our case Christianity the same as it also was at the time of the fall of the Roman empire, also brings to mind the writing of Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville after he visited America in 1831. He said: “I sought for the greatness of the United States in her commodious harbors, her ample rivers, her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there. I sought for it in her rich mines, her vast world commerce, her public school system and in her institutions of higher learning and it was not there. I looked for it in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great!”

America ceased to be good when large portions of academia became socialist and began attacking the church and other foundations of democracy. America ceased to be good within my lifetime, which spans from the end of World War II until today. The real leftward/humanist lurch began in the 1960s and has enfeebled our institutions of education, hijacked Hollywood to make it a cesspool of evil, and driven churches out of public life and inward to become mere shadows of their former selves. America ceased to be “great” during that same period.

American colonists, before the revolution against England, grew in their resilience and confidence in God, to the point where one Crown-appointed governor wrote of the condition to the Board of Trade back in England: “If you ask an American who is his master, he will tell you he has none, nor any governor, but Jesus Christ.” The Committees of Correspondence soon began sounding the cry across the colonies: “No King but King Jesus!”

Gen. Omar Bradley said, “America today is running on the momentum of a Godly ancestry, and when that momentum runs down, God help America.” We have reached that point. Bradley also said, “We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount. The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”

John Quincy Adams wrote, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

No less than George Washington wrote; “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” His successor, John Adams, said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Our democracy is in the process of committing that suicide. We have a government of money and special interests–most of them far-left special interests–not of the people. The media of television and movies have given people the circuses–ever more decadent and vile ones–and Congress has provided the bread in terms of cradle-to-grave handouts.

All the great thinkers of the past warned us against these days in which we find ourselves. What is the average, responsible, Christian citizen to do? Hunker down, it’s going to get a lot worse, soon.

Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here:


Progressives’ Moral Equivalence

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.



You’ve seen this a lot in the last decade and a half: progressives asserting a moral equivalence between radial Islam and Christianity. The argument usually goes something like, “Yeah, sure, terrorists are bad, but they’re hardly the only people to kill in the name of their religion!” Then there’s the obligatory reference to the crusades.

OK, sure, Christianity, like most religions, has had some less-than-flattering moments. But it’s history. If you can point me to the mass graves, severed heads or buildings for Christianity in our lifetime… no need to finish that sentence because there aren’t any.

Christianity is an easy target for progressives; it has a violent past and a central boogeyman – the Vatican. Plus, they hate Christianity because it preaches self-reliance and a Supreme Being, not a supreme leader. Christianity has one Savior born 2,000 years ago, progressivism has many on the ballot every election cycle. They’re quite similar, really, when it comes down to the structure of beliefs.

Both are based on faith – one in a creator, the other in legislation. But while you can believe there is no God, you can’t prove it. It’s all speculation.

On the other hand, it can be proven that progressive policies are failures, that they do actual harm. The 20th century is littered with more than 100 million bodies of victims of progressive’s attempts to create various incarnations of heaven on earth. No such equivalent exists for Christians.

Christianity and the Judeo-Christian belief system, upon which the vast majority of the civilized world is based, took some time to get to the point where it sits today. And there were growing pains, the crusades among them. But that was 1,000 years ago.

So why bring up something a millennium ago to deflect barbaric acts now? Are they implying each religion has to go through some sort of dark period before it enters the light? Of course not. They don’t believe Christianity has entered any light. They still see Christians as the root of most, if not all, evil in the world.

That’s how, after reports that a recent convert to Islam beheaded a former co-worker in Oklahoma, you end up with Media Matters For America employeeswriting things like, “if (sic) you want to believe islam (sic) has a lock on violence, dont (sic) google (sic) the crusades.”

See, a series of invasions to reclaim land lost is the same as terrorism because people died.

Forget the fact that one happened 1,000 years ago and the other is happening now. To progressives, sword fights over control of the Holy Land and suicide bombing a farmers’ market full of school kids are the same thing.

Actually, they’re not. Progressives have a bigger problem with what happened 1,000 years ago than they do with what’s happening now. A sword fight 1,000 years ago between two people whose name history didn’t record is worse, to them, than people currently forcing women into sexual slavery, mutilating their genitals, mass executions and cutting the heads off of people who don’t believe what they believe. They figure the descendants of the people with the swords probably don’t vote the way progressives want them to vote. And that is the only sin in the progressives’ religion of government.

Now, if Christians are forever to be judged by the sins of those who shared similar beliefs millennia ago, shouldn’t the same standard apply to them and people who share their beliefs just a century ago? Should their rules apply only to others and not them? I think not.

Names such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim, Castro, and on an on, all share similar Utopic views on the role of government in creating “fairness,” “justice” and “equality.” But one need not go to other countries to find atrocities both advocated for and committed by progressives.

American progressives of the 20th century conceived of and oversaw brutal displays of inhumanity to their fellow man in the name of purity and science. They lied to black men with syphilis, telling them they were getting free medical treatment, because they wanted to study the natural progression of the disease as it destroyed their brains. They interred Americans for Asian heritage in prison camps simply because they were Asian.

Progressives were the conceptual forefathers of Hitler’s racial purity madness, advocating for ridding the gene pool of what they deemed inferior races, disabled, criminals and those thought not to have high enough IQs to be worthy of reproducing. Whereas Nazis simply wanted to wipe them out by killing them, American progressives wanted to breed them out through sterilization. Well, for the most part; some did want to kill them too.

Should progressives be judged by their predecessors’ barbaric acts? Perhaps they should, since they haven’t really repudiated their goals, only their methods.

Just as no Christians are invading the Middle East to reclaim lost land just because their ancestors did, not all Kennedys are Nazi appeasers or misogynistic killers of women simply because some were in the past.

Not all Muslims are terrorists; in fact, very few of them are. But when it comes to violence committed in the name of “God,” in the name of a religion, those few currently have the market cornered. To pretend otherwise would be to pretend some people are simply better than others because of their skin color, that some people should be eliminated because they are “unworthy of living,” to think World War II could have been negotiated out of happening, to believe Mary Jo Kopechne died on impact… In other words – progressive.


Muslims Crucify Two Teen Boys for Being Christians

1 Comment

This is from Eagle Raising.

These are the seventh century savages liberals say we need to coexist with

The photos that are linked to are very brutal and NSFW.

Winston Churchill on Islam,

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.




In another example of Islamic savagery, rebels in Syria (President Obama’s allies, remember?) have tortured and murdered many Christians in recent days. The reports of their violence are escaping the war torn nation in whispers and hushed rumor.

One such rumor comes out of the town of Maalouli, which is just north of Syria. Reports state that two young Christian boys were tortured and crucified by a Muslim mob for refusing to renounce Christianity. One of the young men was crucified in front of his father, who was then also murdered by the Muslim monsters. A similar incident took place just a few months ago – it seems crucifixion is becoming a favorite method of murder for the Islamists.

Graphic crucifixion image.

But there are other examples – the Catholic Church is reporting through some of their people still on the ground in Syria that Christians are being subjected to medieval terrors at the hands of local Islamists.

In an area called The Abri, which is an industrial zone just outside of Damascus, Islamist criminals began murdering men, women and children just as they entered the city. Even more disgusting, the murderous group played soccer with the heads of their victims once they were finished.

What the monsters did with the pregnant women and their unborn babies is even more disturbing – they pulled the children from their mothers and hanged the babies from a tree by their umbilical cords.

Another graphic crucifixion image.

islam syriaOver the last few months of reporting on Muslim atrocities from around the world, I have begun to grow accustomed to the barbaric behavior of these Islamists. Their actions continue to shock and disturb me. It seems that their bloodlust cannot be satisfied, and that with each new act of monstrosity they are trying to outdo the last act of violence.

Some commenters are quick to jump on me when I use the word extremists in articles like these. I do that for a reason… it makes life easier. People get mad when you characterize a whole group of people by the actions of some. With good reason – I would hate be judged by the actions of others. However, in Islam… the extremists are the majority.

In fact, it’s the moderates who are in the minority, and most of them live here in the West.


In our ally countries of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Egypt, the majority of the populations believe that anyone converting from Islam to Christianity should be executed. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the majority of people believe that honor killings are sometimes justified. (Honor killings being the murder of a girl who the family believes may be dishonoring them in some way.) This is scary for many reasons, one especially being that our ally countries are generally considered to be of the more moderate variety in the Islamic world.

So, dear reader, when I say “extremist Islam,” please understand that I mean most of Islam.

We must pray and press our political representatives to do what they can to help ease the burden of Christians living in the Muslim world. The horrors of what our brothers and sisters, and our fellow human beings, are living through are unspeakable… and we should be doing whatever we can to help.


ACCORDING TO THE LEFT: Christianity Sucks and Islam is Awesome


This is from Clash Daily.

In spite of the evil done in God’s name Christianity has moved past and acknowledged the wrongs done.

We also do a good job of marginalizing the loons running around today.

Man, don’t you love how mainstream media and their soft-brain disciples make Christians out to be fish-stickered, bug-eyed equals to incensed Islam? If you were to accept as true what some atheists, secularists and prattling gay activists say about Christians, you’d think the church is chomping at the bit to chop off some heads of unbelievers, glory to Gawd!

Yep, if you were to believe the barf belched out by the BS brokers on the Left, you’d stagger away Kool Aid drunk with the belief that there is little disparity between conservative Christians and militant Muslims.

As a matter of fact, you probably would be bamboozled into believing that Islam is a peaceful, Little House on the Prairie religion being temporarily hijacked by jihadist renegades, and Christianity . . . Christianity is the real charity-vacant, vicious cult that’s vying for the opportunity to seize the whip and whip us good.

Yes, the postmodern reality stylists are working their butts off trying to convince us TV-addled cattle of two primary things: 1) violent jihad is not based on the Koran and 2) All conservative Christians are theocrats ready to burn Katy Perry at the stake, stone Lindsay Lohan in a nearby gravel pit and governmentally ramrod Christianity down everyone’s pie hole.

I haven’t seen this kind of ham-fisted, forced PR, farcical façade being parlayed upon the public since Michael Jackson tried to make out with Lisa Marie in an attempt to convince us all he’d found true love in an adult of the opposite sex.

Look, there’s no denying violent things have been done by the church and in the name of God, but that has been the exception and not the rule. In addition, when the church has spent time with its head up its butt doing bogus things, the church’s leaders have historically owned it when wrong, have not repeated the gaff, have grabbed the wheel and have effectively steered saints out of any erroneous, detrimental ditch.

Not so with Islam.

In Robert Spencer’s book, Religion of Peace, Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, Bob shows those who can still be shown anything factual the massive and fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity. They are not equal no matter how much the blah blah blatherers of political correctness purport them to be. Their beliefs are not similar, nor their practices, nor their means to spreading their message—and to think otherwise, postmodern Pollyanna, could cost you your ass.

Spencer points out the crystal clear facts that clash with the current anti-Christian hype such as . . .

• Most Muslims do not condemn jihad.

• Christianity and Islam have neither similar traditions nor similar modern realities—Christian religious violence, real or imagined, does not mitigate the reality of jihad.

• A “Christian theocracy” in America is a figment of the Left’s imagination.

• The Islamic world has never developed the distinction between religious and secular law that is inherent in Christianity.

• Christianity has embraced reason—and Islam has always rejected it.

• The Koran does not invite interpretation, and Muslim leaders refuse to discuss how to fit their beliefs into modern society.

• Political differences and unwanted international interference are not, in fact, the cause of the turmoil in Iraq and Middle Eastern antagonism towards the west.

• Jews, Christians and peoples of other faiths (or no faiths) are equally at risk from militant Islam.

• The most determined enemies of western civilization may not be the jihadists at all, but the leftists who fear their churchgoing neighbors more than Islamic terrorists.

Listen, 21st century truth reconstructors . . . you’ve gotta relax. Please do us all a favor and go get healed from your bad Sunday school experience and lay down your church grinding axe. Thinking people aren’t buying the “Christianity = Islam” smack.

Get real, Goofy. You and I both know that regardless of what a few loopy CINO’s (Christians in name only) have done via violence in the name of the Father that it is not in the body of Christian doctrine to hack off the noggin of the obstreperous. There’s not even an obscure passage in the Book of Revelation that some demented clod could twist like your Gumby doll to make the Christian scripture green light your demise or anyone else’s. Additionally, Christians aren’t longing for TBN to replace DC as our nation’s headquarters.

So chill, you shrill shredders of Christianity.

On the flip side, it is within the pages of the Koran to convert, conquer or kill non-Islamic people. And I’m a thinkin’ that no matter how much you work to besmirch Christianity and misinform on behalf of militant Islam, that if they had it their way, you, the secularist, would be a deceased grease stain on God’s green earth.

Therefore, gay guy, loosen that neckerchief and relax on the anti-Christian rhetoric, okay? Atheists, dial down and go back to studying monkeys (or whatever you do) and secularists, switch to decaf and exhale because you guys are barking up the wrong tree in trying to paint Christians as a coercive, could-be-violent, cabal like, militant Islam.

Radical Muslims, on the other hand, are the ones you need to sweat—because their book has zero tolerance for the likes of Katy or Lindsay—or anyone for that matter, who doesn’t lock step. You can bet your backside that if uncut Islam were in charge, Camille Paglia would be history, Drew Barrymore would be nevermore and Andrew Sullivan would never see the sun again.

The Judeo-Christian worldview (and subsequently, the great western traditions it under girds) is the only powerful cudgel in existence to ward off militant Islam. That’s what makes the Left’s lies about Christ’s Church and the Left’s desires to diminish it so diabolical. If the church’s presence and power gets marginalized via these secularists’s anti-Christian propaganda, then all I’ve got to say is, “I hope everyone is cool with wearing burkas.”

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: